Sunday, March 22, 2015

It is said that the teachings on divorce and remarriage and the Eucharist come from Jesus and so cannot be changed. The teachings on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) also come from Jesus (John 3:5,Mk.16:16) and so how could they be changed in 1949 ? Especially when we cannot know anyone saved outside the Church: without 'faith and baptism'.

EENS AND THE OCTOBER 2015 SYNOD

How could it be said by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani that being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water were an exception to EENS, when there was no such case known to him in 1949.

Similarly how could he suggest in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that being saved in implicit desire ( for the baptism of water) by a catechumen who dies before receiving it, was an exception to EENS when he did not and could not know any such case in 1949?

How can the magisterium say in 2015 that there are exceptions to the dogma in 2014-2015 when we cannot know of any such exception? This has an important bearing on the October Synod on the Family.

How can the centuries old interpretation of the dogma defined by three Church Councils be changed when there are no exceptions and there cannot be exceptions?

When the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) says St.Emerentiana died without the baptism of water how can she be an exception to the dogma in 1949 or in 2015? The dogma says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Where is the St.Emerentiana-exception in 1949 or 2015? A case from the past centuries cannot be an exception in the present times.I don't know any St.Emerentiana saved this year without the baptism of water.

It is said by the liberals that Vatican Council II has changed EENS. How can salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II be visible and known in 2015, to become an exception to all needing faith and baptism in 2015 for salvation.? They would have to be known, visible, explicit, objecitve, seen in the flesh to be an exception. Where are the cases today of someone saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) and without faith and baptism? There can be none.The same with UR 3, NA 2, LG 8 etc.

So if the Church's teachings on divorce and remarriage with respect to the Eucharist cannot change, how can the Church's teaching change on EENS?

How can there be a development of the dogma when we cannot know of any exception in the present times? How can being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma?HE MADE A MISTAKE

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1257 when it states God is not limited to the Sacraments.He did not know and could not know of any exception.

He made a mistake in Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio when he assumed that there is salvation outside the Church.

He made a mistake in the Balamand Declaration when he assumed that there is salvation outside the Church and so there should be no ecumenism of return.

He made the same mistake in the International Theological Commission's 'Christianity and the World Religions' and the 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised'.He assumed there is salvation outside the Church in the present times. He assumed people in past centuries or in Heaven are exceptions to the dogma in the presnt times.Then upon this irrationality he created a new theology.

Since there was known salvation outside the Church for him the Catechim(CCC 846 Outside the Church no salvation) says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.When in reality all who are saved are saved through Jesus with formal entry into the Church, with faith and baptism.Since there is known salvation outside the Church for him he has rejected the traditional dogma.

He did not want to say directly and clearly that all Hindus, Buddhist, Jews, Muslims and Christians ( non Catholics) need to formally convert into the Church ( with faith and baptism) for salvation ( to avoid Hell).Instead dejure and defacto he taught there was salvation outside the Church. This is false on both counts.

So why cannot we affirm the centuries old 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS? The cardinals, Marchetti and Ratzinger, did not know of any exceptions and neither do we.THERE IS KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH?

It is based on there being salvation outside the Church that Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J ( now cardinal-secretary of the CDF) put forward the possibility of a theology of religions when he was the President of the ITC (See Christianity and the World Religions). Now we have him and Pope Francis supporting a Department of the Theology of Religions at the Gregorian Pontifical University whose Dean is Fr.Bryan Lobo S.J and pro-Dean the Rector, Fr. Francois-Dumortier S.J.The rector is one of the theological consultants for the October Synod.

Fr.Francois-Dumortier will suggest ( based on their being alleged salvation outside the Church) that there can be an exception made in our theological understanding of the Eucharist being given to the divorced and remarriage.

In fact Cardinal Walter Kaspar already tried to make this connection in an interview.

His understanding is : if we can change EENS why not everything else? If we could get away with it once (1949) with theology why not a second time? So theology will be used to change Church teaching in October.

If a Catholic asks them why do they have a heretical department like the theology of religions at the Gregorian Univesity , they will reply,'since there is salvation outside the Church'. This is their new theology based on an irrationality, an objective error.THERE IS KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

It could be asked of the liberals why are Protestants allowed to marry Catholics, since this is adultery and they are on the way to Hell according to the dogma ? They reply, 'There is salvation outside the Church. The dogma has been replaced or developed . Every one needs to convert except for..."

How can non Catholics marry Catholics in a non Sacramental ritual in the Catholic Church, is this not adultery?.They respond,'there is salvation outside the Church and so even a non Christian can be saved without being a formal member of the Church.'

"Where is this salvation, who are these cases ?". They reply : 'I don't know .We don't know any such case in real life.'

They do not know a single case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church and they have changed so many Church teachings and practises while making a false claim.Now they wil go for the big one in October.OLD THEOLOGICAL ERROR TO FALL BACK UPON

There is no doubt that the Jesuits with Fr.Francois-Dumortier will use

1) the- visible- in- Heaven exceptions or

2) centuries- old- cases- visible- today- exceptions theory, for the October Synod on the Family. As a theological consultant appointed by Pope Francis, Fr.Francois-Dumortier and the other liberal Jesuit consultants, know that this irrationality has been accepted in the past. Fr.Francois-Dumortier cannot create a new theology out of the blue.It has to be one based on ' a fact' acceptable in the Church.

Cardinal Kasper made this attempt theologically but in a superficial way. He was criticised and it was not accepted.It was not accepted at large as it is being done in Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio, ITC papers, Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257, Balamand Declaration etc.

Pope Francis has appointed a battery of liberal theologians.He expects them to have the same success the Jesuits had in changing the dogma EENS.If they can do it once ( and this was what Cardinal Kaspar alluded to) they can do it again with the issue of the Eucharist being given to divorced and remarried Catholics.HOW IT WILL BE DONE

They would use a false premise for example, 'there is a man saved in Heaven without the baptism of water who is visible and known to us in the present times on earth'. This is a standard premise in the Catholic Church. So it is inferred 'there is salvation outside the Church . The dogma is contradicted .There is an exception'. An exception,that's all that they need.This was how it worked in Boston in 1949.

After they postulate a false premise they will build upon it .They could present some 20 pages of theological reasoning based on the premise.It will be distributed at the Synod.Dominus Iesus, Redemptois Missio, ITC's Christianity and the World Religions are theological papers based on the false premise.

Remember that in Boston in 1949 the Jesuits had no scruples.They had an agenda- 'Get rid of the dogma' .They were supported by the Jesuit Provincial, the Rector of Boston College,the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy See. Catholics were prevented from visiting the St.Benedict Center and the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted for some 19 years, not even during Vatican Council II.The ecclesiastics mis-used their power.The traditional interpretation of the dogma was penalised.

Now once again the Masons have an agenda.They have to put forward a new theology which will allow the Eucharist to be given to persons in mortal sin. They will have to reject the ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus found in Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia which Cardinal Walter Kasper criticised on the front page of the magzaine 30Giorni.

Pope Francis already approves the Eucharist being given to Catholic politicians who approve same sex marriages and abortion.

Pope Benedict approved the theology of religions presented in an ITC paper by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria which is not the name of a department at the Greorgian University approved by the Rector and Pope Francis. It met the Masonic agenda here too.

So the groundwork has been done.In general magisterial documents say there is salvation outside the Church.Even traditionalists accept this error. So all this has only has to be adapted to the Synod on the Family, in a systematic and organised way unlike Cardinal Kasper's initial attempt.

Once again Pope Francis has to meet the Masonic agenda and is calling upon Jesuit theologians, to work 'the old trick'.

The entrance it seems to me was similar to a very long and narrow alleyway, like an oven, low and dark and confined; the floor seemed to me to consist of dirty, muddy water emitting foul stench and swarming with putrid vermin...The bodily pains were so unbearable that though I had suffered excruciating ones in this life and according to what doctors say, the worst that can be suffered on earth for all my nerves were shrunken when I was paralyzed, plus many other sufferings of many kinds that I endured and even some as I said, caused by the devil, these were all nothing in comparison with the ones I experienced there...-St.Teresa of Avila's description of Hell.

There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.I would have diedThere are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me...-St.Faustina Kowalska's description of Hell.

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

"Then I was pushed into one of those fiery cavities and pressed, as it were, between burning planks, and sharp nails and red-hot irons seemed to be piercing my flesh."

Here Josefa repeated the multiple tortures from which no single member of the body is excluded:"I felt as if they were endeavoring to pull out my tongue, but could not. This torture reduced me to such agony that my very eyes seemed to be starting out of their sockets. I think this was because of the fire which burns, burns... not a finger-nail escapes terrifying torments, and all the time one cannot move even a finger to gain some relief, nor change posture, for the body seems flattened out and yet doubled in two.-Sr.Joseph Menendez's description of Hell.

There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and
feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a
certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores.

Desiring to be
filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man' s table, and no one did give
him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass,
that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham' s
bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his
eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom:
And he cried, and
said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the
tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.
And Abraham said to
him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and
likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all
this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would
pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then,
father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father' s house, for I
have five brethren,
That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments.
And Abraham said to
him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No,
father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

And he said to
him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one
rise again from the dead.

-Luke 16:19-31 Dives and Lazarus

Second Circle (Lust)

Gianciotto Discovers Paolo and Francesca

In the second circle of Hell are those overcome by lust. Dante condemns these "carnal malefactors"[ for letting their appetites sway their reason. They are the first ones to be truly punished in Hell. These souls are blown back and forth by the terrible winds of a violent storm, without rest. This symbolizes the power of lust to blow one about needlessly and aimlessly.In this circle, Dante sees Semiramis, Dido, Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, Achilles, Paris, Tristan, and many others who were overcome by sexual love during their life. Dante is told byFrancesca da Rimini how she and her husband's brother Paolo Malatesta committed adultery, but then died a violent death, in the name of Love, at the hands of her husband, Giovanni (Gianciotto). Francesca reports that their act of adultery was triggered by reading the adulterous story of LancelotandGuinevere (an episode sculpted by Auguste Rodin in The Kiss). Nevertheless, she predicts that her husband will be punished for hisfratricide in Caïna, within the ninth circle (Canto V).